... apparently not when its methods are applied to them.
Just in the recent past the US massively fostered "regime-change" in the Ukraine, Libya and Syria. Civil wars were started and maintained by arming, training and otherwise supporting terrorist groups like al-Nusra, the Syrian arm of al-Quaida. And the US has a long history of this, e.g. supporting Mujahideen in Afghanistan when they were fighting against Soviet forces. Well documented is the US participation in the 1953 overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran named "Operation Ajax".
So it was and still is part of US foreign policy to destabilize other countries and even incite civil wars. The US pours millions if not billions of dollars in such activities.
In light of this I find it a bit hypocritical that there is now so much outrage about such small scale stuff.
For the Fitzgerald accident there is consistent AIS data that indicates that the freighter sent correct GPS positions. Also we don't see any ships in the vicinity being affected, their AIS-Data (in effect their position based on the GPS-data they received) should show anomalies if their GPS was affected by a spoofing attack.
In addition the US-Navy doesn't use civilian GPS, it's questionable that their GPS-based-systems can be spoofed as easily. Also they should have redundant positioning systems (it is well known that GPS can be jammed, so it'd be foolish to have warships entirely relying on that, even normal ships should have redundant positioning systems). If the GPS-position deviates significantly from other positioning or is simply inconsistent with the current course that should raise massive warnings (on civilian ships it does). Finally the Navy personnel should have seen the other ship visually and on radar.
We've had this debate, at least in my country, I think four or five times now. Canada is probably no different. It's always about blocking content someone or other wants blocked opening the door for censorship. Sometimes the approaches are a little different, be it some kinds of illegal content, terrorism etc.
There is always strong lobbying by the content industry that wants the mechanisms in place and some law that eventually can be extended to cover what they really want. Standing on the sidelines are religious communities that want blasphemy banned or other content they consider to be "dirty".
The first few times these attacks on civil rights met a strong reaction, there was a big discussion and the attack failed. Nevertheless the lobbyists simply start a new attack a few years later and the public just grows tired of having the same discussion over and over again.
Also the politicians either stay completely clueless regarding the subject or the bribes are just raising. Otherwise it's unexplainable why the lobbyists aren't simply ignored when they start the same debate after they've lost it previously. In my opinion politicians supporting such crap should be constantly hammered with accusations of corruptness until they leave politics.
Web blocking isn't the only debate where this happens, wire tapping, IP-logging, the cryptowar, it's all like: "Not again, we had this debate already."
Humans have been advancing "technology" for more than 2 million years now (starting with toolmakers of the stone age), and they're still at it.
So unless someone wants to live naked somewhere in the amazon jungle on a diet of picked berries, dug up roots and some insects; No, one can't "resist the spread of technology".
And if "technology" only refers to recent developments: Who is to say, that a specific state of technological development is "best", and according to which criteria?
But sure, someone can avoid owning a mobile phone and a computer. Nevertheless in day to day life that person relies on an environment that in turn relies on computers and fast, reliable communication (among other things).
Semi-related Quote:
"[...] lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans." -- Douglas Adams
They split the children in three groups, in one group they were praised for being smart, in the next they were praised for the performance and in the last there was no praise at all.
Those who were praised for being smart were more often observed (by hidden camera) to cheat than the others.
"At the hardware level, Intel ME is nothing more than a microcontroller embedded on the Platform Controller Hub (PCH) chip, the component that handles all communication between the actual Intel processor and external devices."
Of course that makes this "component" even more ominous.
1st rule: You do not talk about Code of Conduct. 2nd rule: You DO NOT talk about Code of Conduct! 3rd rule: White CIS males must check their privileges....
The system did explicitly not ask for any kind of information concerning "ethnic" background. The decision not to include that information was surely some kind of "political correctness" policy (probably institutionally ingrained). Not including the information makes it harder to correct for any "existing bias". So there is a prejudice in the design; that not including the "racial background" in the questions will make the system somehow "more fair".
With the system itself being a proprietary black box not open to review the scientific values of any studies based on its performance is questionable at best, the only conclusion anyone should draw from the data is to scrap that system ASAP.
As if it weren't hard enough to ensure AIs can't hurt humans or humanity. Even adding something as basic as a "Stop Button" to an AI is a major headache (search "Stop button problem").
In "2001" it was military paranoia that resulted in contradicting orders causing an AI to become schizophrenic and homicidal, in the near future it'll be political correctness.
"HAL, why did you kill half of my co-workers?" "Sorry Dave, I had to do that to get the quotas correct."
What it means is, that the quantum state from a particle on Site A is transferred to a particle on Site B. This involves an entangled state of two particles in A and B. Depending on the experimental set up the entangled particle in site B may be the object the quantum state is transferred to. The "teleportation" involves a measurement in Site A, and to completely transfer the quantum state to B one needs the (classical) result of this measurement at site B.
Ok, let's just forget the basic rule: don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him dead.
Let's also forget all the other stuff that could go wrong, even if the book had stopped the bullet: blast residue getting into the eyes, accidentally firing a second shot after the recoil lifted the gun...
But at least one should google "book stopping bullet" or something along the line and test the hypothesis that a book stops that bullet without betting ones life on it. Had they done that they'd have known that it couldn't work.
The whole thing is so very, very stupid.
Or it just may be, that it is not so simple to formulate rules for automated censoring.
If all "muslims" are in a "protected group" without restrictions, then it becomes impossible to criticize "radical muslims". Same goes for "racist white men" or "racist whites". Also if "black women" should be included in the censoring scheme, then "white men" must be too.
All this "politically correct" censoring is a questionable approach at best.
A "partially" self-driving car only has a benefit if i can take my mind of the road. Needing to be aware of the situation at all times is what makes driving exhausting, nudging the steering wheel every once in a while isn't.
So if there is an accident about to happen it doesn't matter much if my hands are on the wheel when I'm daydreaming.
If I'm not aware of the situation I can't react, and anyway I first need time to asses the situation before i can react. If my assessment is wrong (e.g. I'm not aware of another car in the next lane) my intervention might even be the cause of an accident.
In principle, to handle this "partially self driving car" safely, not only do I need to be aware of the traffic situation as if I were driving, I'd also need to know the systems assessment of the situation.
How dare they search for politically incorrect things!
There was a time when i considered myself politically left, but since that left embraced orwellian newspeak and dogmatic tabooing anything that doesn't fit their agenda I'm no longer willing to be part of that. Instead of convincing arguments they employ "deplatforming", essentially censoring.
The very same means the political left fought against a few decades ago it now wholeheartedly embraces.
Next politicians will demand that google forbids politically incorrect search terms.
Isn't anyone disturbed by that?
I've read "Shattered", much of the book is how nearly every decision in the campaign, where to appear, which media to use, which voters to address is based on "slicing and dicing the electorate", purely for the purpose of maximizing the votes (and only where they matter).
Shouldn't voting be about the politics to expect from a candidate?
Researchers found out that H2O, commonly known as "Water", surprisingly undergoes a phase transition at zero degrees Celsius under normal atmospheric pressure.
The paper is still under review, but our experimental studies on 594 samples of the substance found that liquid H2O becomes solid when cooled below this temperature. The presence of the solid state was confirmed by probing (poking) the substance with a sophisticated testing device (finger).
By testing with different temperature ranges, including randomized temperatures, it was confirmed that the transition happens at or close to zero degrees Celsius.
A magnet exerts force e.g. on another magnet. But exerting force doesn't require energy as long as nothing moves. Work (W) is force (F) times distance (s) (in direction of the force) W=F*s, so as long as s=0 no work is done, no Energy needed.
Imagine the magnetic attraction replaced by a (extended) spring between the two metal parts. As long as nothing moves no energy needs to be replenished in the spring. If the metal parts are allowed to move closer energy is transferred from the spring to those parts (or whatever holds them apart), to "replenish" the energy you need to pull the parts apart again. To get back to the starting configuration you need to put back in as much work as the magnets released previously (here i simplified the magnets somewhat: they shouldn't magnetize/demagnetize each other or any material, there'd be effects like hysteresis and you need to put some additional work in and get some heat out).
As to where the energy is "stored": it is in the magnetic field. When the magnets move closer together the magnetic field is in an altered configuration that requires less energy. The difference goes into the work W=F*s.
Slashdot Mirror
... apparently not when its methods are applied to them.
Just in the recent past the US massively fostered "regime-change" in the Ukraine, Libya and Syria. Civil wars were started and maintained by arming, training and otherwise supporting terrorist groups like al-Nusra, the Syrian arm of al-Quaida. And the US has a long history of this, e.g. supporting Mujahideen in Afghanistan when they were fighting against Soviet forces. Well documented is the US participation in the 1953 overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran named "Operation Ajax".
So it was and still is part of US foreign policy to destabilize other countries and even incite civil wars. The US pours millions if not billions of dollars in such activities.
In light of this I find it a bit hypocritical that there is now so much outrage about such small scale stuff.
Why? Because it happened at sea?
For the Fitzgerald accident there is consistent AIS data that indicates that the freighter sent correct GPS positions. Also we don't see any ships in the vicinity being affected, their AIS-Data (in effect their position based on the GPS-data they received) should show anomalies if their GPS was affected by a spoofing attack.
In addition the US-Navy doesn't use civilian GPS, it's questionable that their GPS-based-systems can be spoofed as easily. Also they should have redundant positioning systems (it is well known that GPS can be jammed, so it'd be foolish to have warships entirely relying on that, even normal ships should have redundant positioning systems). If the GPS-position deviates significantly from other positioning or is simply inconsistent with the current course that should raise massive warnings (on civilian ships it does). Finally the Navy personnel should have seen the other ship visually and on radar.
We've had this debate, at least in my country, I think four or five times now. Canada is probably no different. It's always about blocking content someone or other wants blocked opening the door for censorship. Sometimes the approaches are a little different, be it some kinds of illegal content, terrorism etc.
There is always strong lobbying by the content industry that wants the mechanisms in place and some law that eventually can be extended to cover what they really want. Standing on the sidelines are religious communities that want blasphemy banned or other content they consider to be "dirty".
The first few times these attacks on civil rights met a strong reaction, there was a big discussion and the attack failed. Nevertheless the lobbyists simply start a new attack a few years later and the public just grows tired of having the same discussion over and over again.
Also the politicians either stay completely clueless regarding the subject or the bribes are just raising. Otherwise it's unexplainable why the lobbyists aren't simply ignored when they start the same debate after they've lost it previously. In my opinion politicians supporting such crap should be constantly hammered with accusations of corruptness until they leave politics.
Web blocking isn't the only debate where this happens, wire tapping, IP-logging, the cryptowar, it's all like:
"Not again, we had this debate already."
Humans have been advancing "technology" for more than 2 million years now (starting with toolmakers of the stone age), and they're still at it.
So unless someone wants to live naked somewhere in the amazon jungle on a diet of picked berries, dug up roots and some insects; No, one can't "resist the spread of technology".
And if "technology" only refers to recent developments:
Who is to say, that a specific state of technological development is "best", and according to which criteria?
But sure, someone can avoid owning a mobile phone and a computer. Nevertheless in day to day life that person relies on an environment that in turn relies on computers and fast, reliable communication (among other things).
Semi-related Quote:
"[...] lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans." -- Douglas Adams
Did you even read the linked article?
They split the children in three groups, in one group they were praised for being smart, in the next they were praised for the performance and in the last there was no praise at all.
Those who were praised for being smart were more often observed (by hidden camera) to cheat than the others.
How does your theory account for that?
The cake is a lie.
Well, to the rest of the management information security probably *is* a bullshit job.
Every time I heard/read warnings of solar storms and their effects in the end it was kind of a non-event.
From the article:
"At the hardware level, Intel ME is nothing more than a microcontroller embedded on the Platform Controller Hub (PCH) chip, the component that handles all communication between the actual Intel processor and external devices."
Of course that makes this "component" even more ominous.
... different from cable-companies doing effectively the very same thing?
1st rule: You do not talk about Code of Conduct. ...
2nd rule: You DO NOT talk about Code of Conduct!
3rd rule: White CIS males must check their privileges.
As you lump "programmers generally" and assign "moral and intellectual certainty" to them your argument fails.
The system did explicitly not ask for any kind of information concerning "ethnic" background. The decision not to include that information was surely some kind of "political correctness" policy (probably institutionally ingrained). Not including the information makes it harder to correct for any "existing bias". So there is a prejudice in the design; that not including the "racial background" in the questions will make the system somehow "more fair".
With the system itself being a proprietary black box not open to review the scientific values of any studies based on its performance is questionable at best, the only conclusion anyone should draw from the data is to scrap that system ASAP.
As if it weren't hard enough to ensure AIs can't hurt humans or humanity. Even adding something as basic as a "Stop Button" to an AI is a major headache (search "Stop button problem").
In "2001" it was military paranoia that resulted in contradicting orders causing an AI to become schizophrenic and homicidal, in the near future it'll be political correctness.
"HAL, why did you kill half of my co-workers?"
"Sorry Dave, I had to do that to get the quotas correct."
What it means is, that the quantum state from a particle on Site A is transferred to a particle on Site B. This involves an entangled state of two particles in A and B. Depending on the experimental set up the entangled particle in site B may be the object the quantum state is transferred to. The "teleportation" involves a measurement in Site A, and to completely transfer the quantum state to B one needs the (classical) result of this measurement at site B.
... so now some people are affected that "count".
We really need to rethink this whole mess on a global scale.
Robots don't buy cars and AIs don't buy financial products.
The writing is on the wall, but we're still accelerating towards it
hoping the fine print will provide a solution.
Ok, let's just forget the basic rule: don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him dead. Let's also forget all the other stuff that could go wrong, even if the book had stopped the bullet: blast residue getting into the eyes, accidentally firing a second shot after the recoil lifted the gun ...
But at least one should google "book stopping bullet" or something along the line and test the hypothesis that a book stops that bullet without betting ones life on it. Had they done that they'd have known that it couldn't work.
The whole thing is so very, very stupid.
Or it just may be, that it is not so simple to formulate rules for automated censoring. If all "muslims" are in a "protected group" without restrictions, then it becomes impossible to criticize "radical muslims". Same goes for "racist white men" or "racist whites". Also if "black women" should be included in the censoring scheme, then "white men" must be too. All this "politically correct" censoring is a questionable approach at best.
A "partially" self-driving car only has a benefit if i can take my mind of the road. Needing to be aware of the situation at all times is what makes driving exhausting, nudging the steering wheel every once in a while isn't.
So if there is an accident about to happen it doesn't matter much if my hands are on the wheel when I'm daydreaming.
If I'm not aware of the situation I can't react, and anyway I first need time to asses the situation before i can react. If my assessment is wrong (e.g. I'm not aware of another car in the next lane) my intervention might even be the cause of an accident.
In principle, to handle this "partially self driving car" safely, not only do I need to be aware of the traffic situation as if I were driving, I'd also need to know the systems assessment of the situation.
Don't you get them on prescription?
Fidget spinners are serious business!
How dare they search for politically incorrect things! There was a time when i considered myself politically left, but since that left embraced orwellian newspeak and dogmatic tabooing anything that doesn't fit their agenda I'm no longer willing to be part of that. Instead of convincing arguments they employ "deplatforming", essentially censoring. The very same means the political left fought against a few decades ago it now wholeheartedly embraces. Next politicians will demand that google forbids politically incorrect search terms.
Isn't anyone disturbed by that? I've read "Shattered", much of the book is how nearly every decision in the campaign, where to appear, which media to use, which voters to address is based on "slicing and dicing the electorate", purely for the purpose of maximizing the votes (and only where they matter). Shouldn't voting be about the politics to expect from a candidate?
... maybe that explains the attitude.
Researchers found out that H2O, commonly known as "Water", surprisingly undergoes a phase transition at zero degrees Celsius under normal atmospheric pressure.
The paper is still under review, but our experimental studies on 594 samples of the substance found that liquid H2O becomes solid when cooled below this temperature. The presence of the solid state was confirmed by probing (poking) the substance with a sophisticated testing device (finger).
By testing with different temperature ranges, including randomized temperatures, it was confirmed that the transition happens at or close to zero degrees Celsius.
A magnet exerts force e.g. on another magnet. But exerting force doesn't require energy as long as nothing moves. Work (W) is force (F) times distance (s) (in direction of the force) W=F*s, so as long as s=0 no work is done, no Energy needed.
Imagine the magnetic attraction replaced by a (extended) spring between the two metal parts. As long as nothing moves no energy needs to be replenished in the spring. If the metal parts are allowed to move closer energy is transferred from the spring to those parts (or whatever holds them apart), to "replenish" the energy you need to pull the parts apart again. To get back to the starting configuration you need to put back in as much work as the magnets released previously (here i simplified the magnets somewhat: they shouldn't magnetize/demagnetize each other or any material, there'd be effects like hysteresis and you need to put some additional work in and get some heat out).
As to where the energy is "stored": it is in the magnetic field. When the magnets move closer together the magnetic field is in an altered configuration that requires less energy. The difference goes into the work W=F*s.